What are now the status of the waivers, the exemptions, etc. for a tax, which should be equally applied?

Do religious groups like Muslims have a right to not play?

Do the waivers to the various companies still have effect?

Do the unions still have an exemption?

If Catholics must pay for birth control, why do other religions have the right to claim an exemption, since we are no longer honoring the religious precepts of long standing?

Now that it is a tax, what are the effects on what has happened which is based on the fact that it is not assumed to be a tax prior to this date?

Also, I would like a tax on any person who refused to own a handgun with at least a magazine capacity of 7 cartridges, and that tax will be 1% of the Adjusted gross income of the taxpayer. The purpose is to alleviate the high costs of crime and the burgeoning court costs.

In pre-revolutionary American, many localities had ordinances that required gun ownership to support the militia. The Constitution allows for the maintenance of a militia, so there is more support for that idea, than for health care.

As long as I am going to be taxed eventually for not buying solar, for not eating veggie burgers, and for not being polite, then I at least one everyone armed.

A mandate is a mandate is a mandate and a penalty is a penalty is a penalty. It matters not the vehicle used by the government to enforce it or levy it. This is no different than me driving past a federal park that has a $5 admission fee and being told I must pay $4 for not entering. No one in their right mind could reasonably argue that I was not being punished for failing to enter the park.

I disagree with Rush. Fraud WAS committed, but it happened when this obamanation of a bill was passed, not yesterday. We were told “this is not a tax” yet when they went before the Supreme Court, they used “it’s a tax” as their 3rd line of argumentation. Justice Roberts didn’t put that argument forth, the Obama lawyers did. Then the SCOTUS had to consider the constitutionality of all three arguments and threw ACA under the bus on the first two, but could not do so on the third. The constitution does give Congress unlimited power to tax, Article 1 Section 8, and Roberts didn’t right that either...

I have to say that it is extemely dangerous for me to listen to the opening monologue today. This decision yesterday is making me feel a little “postal”. ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! My head is spinning!!!!!

So the question presents itself...what kind of judges will Romney appoint?

Will they be more conservative than Roberts?

The Taxing authority has completely subsumed the Commerce Clause and made it irrelevant, for what cannot be regulated may now be taxed in disparate ways to force concessions that are a suitable substitute for regulation.

The King had no greater power at the time of the Revolution. Arguably, he had less authority.

Nobody is saying it’s a victory for our side. It’s the last nail in Obama’s political coffin, something we certainly all want. But we will still be left to try and fix a country whose Constitution has been shredded. No victories here.

great program, so far...if the USSC is so confused..so disjointedit can't be trusted to resolved the disputes per the Constitution....it seems the public only recourse is a revolutionary action in 110 years;the strict interpretation of the Constitution/Original Bill of Rights. 8-)

The Arizona ruling now also makes more sense, for they only approved a part of the statute that could not in reality be enforced anyway, without the consent of the President’s administration. Hence the question during oral argument that stated that the INS had no obligation to answer the telephone or some such comment. It was telling in the extreme.

This court has given us nothing.

Oh, and it is all right to lie about being a veteran, because it is free speech. No harm, no foul. What will be next, false advertising is all right, as long as no one is hurt? If someone says their hamburgers will let you live to 100, is the person who buys it damaged if they merely live out their normal life span? Veterans and the Country are harmed by false allegations of heroism, by diluting the real contributions of real heroes. But in this society, heroism is inchoate and a matter of opinion now, with no cultural basis for anything anymore.

Greetings AB good to see you around here! Alas Babylon for those wh dontknow heads upthe tV Talk show thread every Sunday moring and has done so for years his efforts are greatly appreciated!

Rush is absolutely correct and my guess is he got a lot of his evidence from Mark Levin who has always been his lawyer and a close friend. I didn't get a chance to hear Levin's show last night but would not be surprised if there are some similarities.

Rush of course is not answering "why" Roberts did what he did.

The I want to go down in history stuff is pretty weak.

You have to ask what motivates Roberts and what motivated those who chose him be on the bench be it GW or others. Ask all those questions do some intensive searching and you will not like what is out there. It's so comprehensive it will take me all weekend just to absorb it all.

27
posted on 06/29/2012 9:33:42 AM PDT
by rodguy911
(FreeRepublic:Land of the Free because of the Brave--Sarah Palin 2012)

“Not Our Job To Protect Americans From ‘Consequences Of Their Political Choices’. “

I am Soooooo glad Rush is blasting away at that stupid comment Roberts threw in his opinion. There have been way too many comments around here in the last 24 hours that we got what we deserved, essentially.....and that Roberts was actually doing us a favor.

I am Soooooo glad Rush is blasting away at that stupid comment Roberts threw in his opinion. There have been way too many comments around here in the last 24 hours that we got what we deserved, essentially.....and that Roberts was actually doing us a favor.

Several times since the ruling I’ve thought back to the Roberts’ Senate confirmation hearings, at least the part I watched. Many marveled at how slick Roberts was at talking a great deal, but still managing to avoid revealing anything about how he might rule on future cases.

He often seemed too clever by half, or just too darn slick. And man does that seem to be confirmed many times over now. Some of Rush’s remarks today are in that vein. Some people are just too clever, and who knows whether they use that to reach a clear objective, or just because they enjoy being clever.

The only advantage I see to this decision (except that it should have been all thrown out), is that the passage of a bill to remove the tax does not need a 60 vote super-majority to pass, and merely a 51% vote is all that is needed. Is that correct?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.